r/waze • u/KD4MNI • May 23 '19
Desperate plea for removal of 1891 Concord Covered Bridge with 7'0" clearance and 8-ton weight restriction from traffic routing to stop weekly collisions and other incidents
The local historical 1891 Concord Covered Bridge (pre-dating automobiles) has a very low clearance (7'0"), no truck traffic restriction, 8-ton weight limit but Waze/Google Maps routes traffic through it, and it gets hit every few weeks by idiots, making local and national news like the infamous 11 Foot 8 bridge in Durham NC. What's worse, there's a nearby one-lane bridge just uphill and Waze routes tractor-trailer trucks along with all the other traffic down into "the hole" where it then requires local police to stop traffic so the drivers can back their rigs uphill around the bend and back across the narrow one-lane bridge, a maneuver that can block the road for hours.
How someone driving a U-Haul truck can blindly follow Waze or Google Maps and ignore flashing warning signs and crash into iron beams erected to protect an old wooden bridge simply can't be explained, it's not a rational act, yet it happens with increasing regularity - at least once a month now.
Why can't we simply get Waze to remove our beloved wooden bridge from their routing algorithms and detour traffic on nearby Hurt Road? The frequent collisions and backups are a major public expense and safety hazard, and an embarrassment to our community and to Waze/Google Maps. What's worse, the Waze routing was initially correctly blocked at the covered bridge (no through truck traffic, severe height and weight restrictions), but a routing override was entered into the Waze database after several months.
We can't even get Waze to provide drivers with a warning that they're approaching a 7'0" height restriction, yet they nag us well in advance about scraps of truck tires along the side of the freeways.
There is no good reason for this, only excuses. The thousands and thousands of wasted hours and gallons of fuel and the trucks that are regularly smashed into the bridge bear testimony to callous arrogance and apathy, not what most would call corporate "doing good".
I challenge someone from Waze or Google Maps with the authority to respond here, we've tried everything else with no results.
Daniel W Colestock, PE
Friends of the Concord Covered Bridge Historic District (Smyrna/Cobb County GA)
[dan.colestock@gmail.com](mailto:dan.colestock@gmail.com)
14
u/deekster_caddy May 23 '19
Commercial trucking should not be using Waze for navigation, period. The Waze app does not have height or weight restrictions, it is intended for local routing and traffic avoidance... and it does those things well. U-haul drivers need to be aware of their height limits, no navigation app is going to correct for that if a 'casual' user is driving a tall rental truck...
You can reach out to Waze editors in the area and see what they can do for a particular section of road. Waze does have community outreach groups who can set up a local 'official' to manage roads and scheduled construction closures in their area. The problem is that if 'regular' traffic uses this bridge with the Waze app in use (even if they weren't routed that way), the algorithms in Waze will eventually re-open that section for use. That's probably how the section got re-opened. No navigation app can be responsible for people ignoring local signage.
The waze editor groups use Discord. That's your best bet to find your area managers who can bring the issue up with higher levels to lock something down.
If you follow the 11'8" bridge, (I'm fascinated by it) they installed a large steel beam in front of the bridge, so when trucks inevitably ignore all of the warning signs and flashing lights, they crash into the beam instead of the bridge itself.
8
u/jacob6875 May 23 '19 edited May 23 '19
The problem is that Waze isn't designed for Trucks so it doesn't have truck specific routing.
The issue is dumb users blindly following the Waze app (or other non truck GPS) for ways it was not intended.
When I drove semi's I planned out my entire route in advance very carefully. I had a trucking atlas that listed roads that were non truck routes and had low clearances and would avoid them.
I'm not sure what you expect Google or Waze to do except restrict all routing down the road which would defeat the purpose of using a GPS app designed for cars. Having a low clearance alert also would not make sense for the Waze app since the user-base is supposed to be driving cars. You would be giving 99.9% of users pointless low clearance alerts for no reason.
I guess they could add a warning when you first install Waze that it is not designed for Large vehicle routing but the people ignoring low clearance signs would probably ignore that also.
Finally even if map editors go in and close the road on waze local users will still drive on it eventually opening it up again since Waze will see constant traffic on it and assume the road is open again.
1
u/deekster_caddy May 23 '19
Curious, is there any kind of 'regulation' about navigation or routing for trucks stating that "consumer" navigation apps should not be used? For a while my dad had an RV/truck specific GPS nav that had height restrictions in it and would give preference to major roads over minor roads, etc. I want to say it was a Rand McNally unit. Is there something similar in the commercial trucking world? I'm guessing most 'local' truck drivers don't have/use these due to cost etc, but curious if there are any rules about the topic.
4
u/jacob6875 May 23 '19
No kind of DOT rule preventing the use of normal GPS units but every company I worked for stressed all the time not to route using any kind of GPS only since even the expensive trucking ones are not 100% reliable.
Expensive trucking GPS units do exist but I never used one. I would plan the route out in the atlas using roads I could go down then set up waypoints in a normal “car gps” so it would take me the way I wanted.
1
6
u/deekster_caddy May 23 '19
I received feedback from a higher level Waze editor. He suggests sending a DM to a Georgia area manager, you can find them listed here: https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/USA/Southeast
This is the road segment you are specifically interested in (I think): https://www.waze.com/en-US/editor?env=usa&lon=-84.55883&lat=33.84917&s=3274071&zoom=8&segments=512372508
the link will be helpful to send to the area manager.
2
u/driving79 May 27 '19
Hi Daniel, the area/bridge is well-known to the local waze map editors. The segment has restrictions on it (which are worthless as already explained), has an area place over it with info (which is worthless unless routing there) AND now I have added reports (warnings) that will alert you when driving through there. These are similar to any cars on side of road, accidents, etc reports/alerts you encounter when using the waze app. This was only done because we know how it is hit all the time and is a major issue. We are doing the best we can with the tools we have, however, we can't make people open their eyes and read signs so it will continue to be hit. This is all on waze as I am unable to do anything on google maps. Thanks.
4
u/nathhad May 23 '19
As a bridge engineer (also PE) who has had responsibility for a couple of frequently abused bridges for years, Waze is honestly not your problem. People who don't read signs or don't care have been overloading and sometimes destroying bridges since long, long before there was GPS to send them there.
If they've passed half a dozen signs, a warning on Waze won't make any difference either. As others have pointed out, people issuing Waze to navigate a large commercial vehicle are already abusing the app. In my personal opinion, at least (I have no association with Waze other than user and former volunteer editor), breaking navigation for normal road users in an attempt to redirect a minority of users who are already misusing the program is a little misguided, though I know the desire is well intentioned.
From experience, your best bet to protect your bridge is a blocker beam, as suggested by a few other users. The type of person who ignores that many warning signs will not be deterred by any combination of signs, computer program changes, or even legal restrictions. Your only realistic bet is to physically prevent the over height vehicles from reaching the bridge. Overweight vehicles there's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent, but the height restriction is going to eliminate most overweight vehicles already. I'd love to have your low superstructure on my most abused bridge, it has no height restriction and is easy to overload.
2
u/KD4MNI May 23 '19 edited May 23 '19
Thanks for the constructive posts. I still don't understand why Waze/Google Maps can't - or won't - support permanent warnings of hazardous road conditions such as weight restrictions or low clearance like this. I've heard the excuses, that's exactly what they are. If they wanted to fix this, they would. The same goes for routing traffic through small neighborhoods that have no recourse. It's just wrong and they know it.
3
u/jacob6875 May 23 '19
Because it doesn't make any sense. Waze and google maps are designed for cars not large trucks or RVs.
99.9% of users in cars would get pointless warnings about being on non-truck routes or getting warnings about low clearances.
2
May 23 '19
The bridge already has a no trucks restriction on it. Unfortunately this doesn't do a lot of good because the Waze app doesn't allow you to set truck as your vehicle type.
The road is also the lowest classification type, so no help there.
Really this comes down to the drivers not paying attention to road signs. Waze (or any nav app/device) can only go so far. It is on the driver to follow posted signs. Ultimately, Waze is meant for commuters, and not trucks. The map is always edited with this in mind.
1
u/GeekyWan Geek May 27 '19
This has been brought to the attention of the senior volunteer editors in the southeast region. They have made changes to the map that should help.
1
u/DJPelio May 23 '19
Why can’t they dig deeper and make the road lower to add more clearance?
2
u/KD4MNI May 23 '19
If you're referring to the 11'8" "can opener" bridge in Durham, my understanding is that there's a city water main running just under the roadway, limiting how far it can be safely lowered. Be assured that they've tried all the obvious fixes, short of closing the railroad bridge underpass completely.
What's particularly fascinating about these bridges is how completely oblivious and just plain stupid some drivers can be. It's comical but sobering to watch the webcam videos of the Durham bridge.
0
u/Plutopowered May 23 '19
Would inputting a drivers model car into Waze help? If that were a thing, of course....
-2
u/TexasFire_Cross May 23 '19
Aside from reaching out to a Regional Editor, the best you can do to attempt to re-route some folks is mark it as closed (long-term). But that re-routes all traffic and would probably be removed by an editor within days.
Contact the transportation dept that has jurisdiction on that bridge and attempt to get it re-classified/restricted so as to prohibit truck traffic. But as you've seen with the 11' 8" bridge, sometimes you can't out-engineer stupid.
1
u/Matt_in_FL Robot May 27 '19
mark it as closed (long-term)
Not the right way to use the system, AND it would get removed manually very quickly, AND even if it wasn't removed manually, if Waze sees enough traffic through a "closed" section, it will reopen it until the traffic flow stops, then revert it to "closed."
17
u/twister-uk T-Rex May 23 '19
The problem here is that Waze is not designed to be a general purpose satnav app suitable for all, but rather is aimed at commuters and more recently taxi drivers and motorcyclists. As such, we can map out restrictions which apply to private cars, taxis and motorbikes, but there's no way to control routing for other types of vehicle such as trucks, other than to prevent routing for all types of vehicle.
Given the focus of Waze on these specific types of road user, you'll then generally find that the local/national map editing policies are to include any road that is useable by these vehicles in order to give these users the best routing experience - users will be only too quick to complain if they realise Waze refuses to use a road that they know they could be using and which would save them time.
I appreciate there's an issue with idiot drivers of larger vehicles ignoring all the warning signs here (as happens far too often in far too many similar locations around the world), but this isn't specifically a Waze problem - many general purpose satnav systems will assume the user is driving an average sized vehicle capable of using most/all of the roads in its mapping database, and there is a parallel market for satnav systems specifically designed around the needs of larger vehicle drivers, with mapping data that includes width/height/weight restrictions. Not surprisingly, such systems tend to be more expensive than the general purpose systems, and infinitely more expensive than free solutions such as Waze or Google, and so some truck drivers choose not to invest in these systems...
Finally, please bear in mind that the Waze map data is entirely maintained by volunteers as a crowdsourced effort, and appealing to Waze themselves will therefore be of little use as they don't have any direct involvement here.